Re: what is economics for anyways????????

On 7/30/26 10:05 AM, Dude wrote:
> On 7/30/2026 7:33 AM, Wilson wrote:
>> On 7/29/2026 5:23 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:12:39 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/28/2026 3:00 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 7/28/26 10:02 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2026 7:08 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/26 1:04 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/27/2026 3:17 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 12:47:57 -0400, Wilson 
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You haven't even defined what you mean by "consumer 
>>>>>>>>>>> efficiency". How
>>>>>>>>>>> about starting there? Because it sounds like made-up bogus
>>>>>>>>>>> progressive
>>>>>>>>>>> collectivist nonsense that in the end only results in the
>>>>>>>>>>> reduction of
>>>>>>>>>>> personal agency.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> most utility for least time and cost
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> this can be hard to define, but for digital systems this becomes
>>>>>>>>> much easier due to the precision of the objects being bought 
>>>>>>>>> and sold.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the distribution costs of digital products is so negligible 
>>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>>> need to utilize govts to stop it from happening for free. when i
>>>>>>>>> pay for a digital product i'm not paying for distribution, i'm
>>>>>>>>> trying to pay for the creation of the product, something which the
>>>>>>>>> distribution platform has no participation within.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to turn around and have the distribution platform take a 30% cut,
>>>>>>>>> and then mostly distribute my subscription money away from the
>>>>>>>>> artists i actually listen to, and instead in accordance with
>>>>>>>>> massive digital rights contracts between the platform and major
>>>>>>>>> music publishers... is incredibly inefficient in regards to the
>>>>>>>>> transaction i'm trying to undertake: which is payback the artists
>>>>>>>>> for the creation of the music i listen to so that they create more
>>>>>>>>> of the music is _actually_ listen to...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> to the ask my to have to buy and managed my digital library myself
>>>>>>>>> is asking me to bear a different cost: my time in setting that up
>>>>>>>>> and doing so. and ur not only asking me to _bear_ that cost, ur
>>>>>>>>> asking _everyone_ to redundantly _bear_ that cost on an individual
>>>>>>>>> level across society
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...which is just incredibly moronically inefficient as compared to
>>>>>>>>> having a single communal digital repository which provides _both_
>>>>>>>>> an optimal interface into consumer, and optimal distribution back
>>>>>>>>> to the artists i _actually_ listen to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's not at all what I was thinking you had in mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my business I deal with people in the real world space. What set
>>>>>>>> me off against the idea of "consumer efficiency" was a system that
>>>>>>>> decided what was acceptably efficient, placed in between the seller
>>>>>>>> and the customer. That would be a bad idea for them and the 
>>>>>>>> provider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i have said this many times before: we should open the financial
>>>>>>> operations of all businesses, and let the consumers decide if the
>>>>>>> service is truly efficient for the price or not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Small businesses as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> ofc
>>>>>
>>>>>> Requiring that sort of reporting (with the necessary legal compliance
>>>>>> oversight costs) will increase customer costs as well. Doing that 
>>>>>> sort
>>>>>> of thin is not automatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> automated reports is not what i'm talking about, i'm talking about 
>>>>> real
>>>>> time auditability where the entire business is run in an open manner
>>>>> that consumers can browse at their leisure
>>>>>
>>>>> info tech is exactly the kind of thing that solve. govt provides an
>>>>> efficient platform to run ur business from that has this automated 
>>>>> real
>>>>> time auditability built in. businesses can choose to use it ... or 
>>>>> fail
>>>>> due to the cost of trying to utilize other less efficient processes.
>>>>> that's fine. people with their head on straight (like not you) will
>>>>> figure this out
>>>>
>>>> So I wonder about the unintended second-order effects of that sort 
>>>> of thing.
>>>
>>> That's interesting.  Wilson would never worry his little head about
>>> unintended stuff when business does things.
>>>
>>>> If I understand the idea (probably not to your satisfaction) the
>>>> potential customer could see what products were costing the business 
>>>> and
>>>> what they are making per transaction.
>>>>
>>>> It seems likely any business that made a higher profit per customer
>>>> would be criticized even if their products were less expensive.
>>>>
>>>> So I wonder, what would be the incentive for a business to improve in
>>>> order to cut costs if all of that would need to be given back to the
>>>> customer?
>>>
>>> Because greed is the only reason business is willing to do anything.
>>>
>>>> Why bother?
>>>
>>> Because we might all be better off if people could find a different
>>> way to be motivated.
>>>
>>>> Why not just let things be as they've always been.
>>>
>>> Ah yes, do nothing, do nothing, do nothing.
>>>
>>>> That's one place I see a drag on innovation.
>>>
>>> Because greed is the only motive you understand.
>>
>> People do things to benefit themselves. That is a natural incentive.
>>
>> People like Noah want to remake humanity into a selfless tribal 
>> culture that is not motivated by the drive for self-improvement.
>>
>> He sees no possible downside to that.
>>
> Obviously, Noah has a regressive attitude. Nick, on the other hand, is a 
> radical regressive. YMMV.
> 
> their platform calls for an end to the American constitutional republic 
> and would be disastrous for the working class.

shut the fuck up and open the borders u exploitive moron

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃